CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Willowtree House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety checks, staff training and management systems were not reliable.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, health and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to take part in activities. Staff understood people's needs and worked with health professionals.
However, the home was not always safe or well managed. Some health and safety checks were missed or not acted on. There were infection control concerns, gaps in staff training, and incomplete mental capacity and DoLS records.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home breached Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance. No evidence of harm was found, but people were placed at risk.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw people at ease and treated with dignity.
“We observed many positive interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and communication styles. People were supported to make choices and build independence.
“People's care plans were individual to them and contained current information about people's needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in social and therapeutic activities in the home and local community. They were supported to maintain family relationships.
“People had support to participate in a wide range of therapeutic, social activities, both in the home and in the local community.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals. Specialist advice was used where people had complex eating or drinking needs.
“Staff and management worked with a range of community health and social care professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousSome safety checks were not completed on time, and identified problems were not always followed up. Radiator covers and Legionella control measures were also not consistently in place.
“Staff had not consistently followed the provider's systems and processes to assess and minimise risks to people.” from the report
Infection and food safety
seriousSome areas were dirty, the dining table was difficult to clean, and food was not always labelled or checked before serving.
“People were at risk of infection as food was not always safely stored.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed food hygiene or infection control training. Other required training had not always been refreshed on time.
“Records showed that a number of the staff had not received training in food hygiene and infection control.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and management checks did not reliably identify problems or make sure they were fixed. Some records were incomplete, which made review more difficult.
“The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not always effective at identifying concerns and driving improvement in the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure fire, equipment, water temperature and fridge checks are completed and acted on every time?
- 02How have you fixed the food labelling, cooked food temperature and cleaning problems found at the inspection?
- 03Have all staff now completed and refreshed food hygiene, infection control and behaviour support training?
- 04Are mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions and DoLS applications now fully recorded and up to date?
- 05What changes have been made to audits, residents' meetings and staff meetings so that problems are identified and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, based on checks of the home, discussions with people, staff and relatives, and reviews of care, health, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Creative Support - Willowtree House was Rated Good across all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 July 2017. One inspector spoke with three people using the home, two support workers, a team leader and the manager. They reviewed three care records, three staff files and other management documents.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and that there were enough trained staff. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had suitable training and support, gained consent, respected privacy and dignity, and helped people make choices and stay independent.
Care was personalised and people and families were involved in reviews where appropriate. People knew how to complain. The home had quality checks and used feedback to make improvements. There was no registered manager at the time, but the manager was applying to register with CQC.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were securely stored, accurately recorded and administered by trained staff.
“Medicines were managed safely and the processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, needs and ways of communicating. Staff supported people to make choices and build independence.
“The care that people received was personalised to their needs and requirements.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and kind. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“People's privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.” from the report
People's involvement
People were involved in care planning, reviews and feedback. The home showed that people's suggestions could lead to action.
“People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used audits, questionnaires and peer reviews to monitor the service and make improvements.
“Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorA manager was in post but was still going through the CQC registration process. Ask who is now legally responsible for managing the home.
“There was not a registered manager in post. The service had a manager that was going through the process of registering with the CQC to become the registered manager.” from the report
Some agency staff
minorThe home was using some agency staff while recruiting permanent staff. Inspectors said regular agency workers had the opportunity to get to know residents, but families may want to check the current position.
“The manager told us that the service currently used some agency staff within the service, and recruitment was taking place to try and find permanent staff.” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager, and who has legal responsibility for running the home?
- 02How many permanent staff are currently in post, and how often are agency staff used?
- 03Do staff still receive regular supervision, induction and refresher training?
- 04How are residents involved in reviewing their care plans and communication needs?
- 05What changes have been made in response to residents' feedback and the home's quality audits?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, based on discussions with three people, staff and the manager, and reviews of three care records and three staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Willowtree House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 January 2016.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.